1 edit
@no1marauder said"I don't see anything in this indictment that isn't true"
Right wing hypocrisy is really nauseating; weren't you one of the posters screaming for an indictment of Hillary Clinton a few months before the 2016 election?
I don't see anything in this indictment that isn't true. Smith will have to convince a jury that Trump knew his claims of election fraud that tainted the election were false but the indictment doesn' have to spe ...[text shortened]... y in front of the Grand Jury) and might have direct knowledge that Trump knew his claims were false.
That is irrelevant. It has to be true and illegal. If the truth is legal why does it matter?
"First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud"
The indictment does not prove Trump knowingly lied. This is a mind reading lie. Nobody knows what Trump thought. That is simply an untrue statement. Indictments should not lie while condemning lies they know are perfectly legal and said so.
@metal-brain saidIndictments don't have to prove anything.
"I don't see anything in this indictment that isn't true"
That is irrelevant. It has to be true and illegal. If the truth is legal why does it matter?
"First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud"
The indictment does not prove Trump knowingly lied. This is a mind reading lie. Nobody knows what Trump thought. That is simply an untrue statement. Indictments should not lie while condemning lies they know are perfectly legal and said so.
Your idea that the legal system can't determine someone's intent is incredibly ignorant and outright stupid. It may well be that Trump made statements showing he knew his claims were false. At any rate, the prosecutors have more information regarding what Trump actually believed than what is spelled out in the indictment and you don't need to read someone's mind to establish intent to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; it gets done in US courts every day.
@metal-brain saidYou "proved" no such thing. Only two States even placed such caveats on the certificates (5 didn't) and at any rate the conspirators ignored it, sent the fake certificates in and then pressured Pence toss out the duly elected and official electors and replace them with the fake ones even though no court had ruled to do so. Your point is actually strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Lets start with a and b.
Prove he did that. I proved the electors change of votes would only count if the courts ruled in Trump's favor. How would that disenfranchise millions of voters?
e is completely ridiculous. It is the same big lie you have been telling for months. It is blaming the conduct of others on Trump. You cannot blame Trump for protesters that trespa ...[text shortened]... atement. Indictments should not lie while condemning lies they know are perfectly legal and said so.
You making the same mistake over and over and over again doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
@metal-brain saidHere's what Trump did after the crowd he had incited broke into the Capitol:
Lets start with a and b.
Prove he did that. I proved the electors change of votes would only count if the courts ruled in Trump's favor. How would that disenfranchise millions of voters?
e is completely ridiculous. It is the same big lie you have been telling for months. It is blaming the conduct of others on Trump. You cannot blame Trump for protesters that trespa ...[text shortened]... atement. Indictments should not lie while condemning lies they know are perfectly legal and said so.
" 110. Upon receiving news that individuals had breached the Capitol, the Defendant's advisors told him that there was a riot there and that rioters had breached the building. When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen.
111. At 2:24 pm, after advisors had left the Defendant alone in his dining room, the Defendant issued a Tweet intended to further delay and obstruct the certification:
“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth?”
112. One minute later, at 2:25 pm., the United States Secret Service was forced to evacuate the Vice President to a secure location.
113. At the Capitol, throughout the afternoon, members of the crowd chanted, “Hang Mike Pence”; “Where is Pence? Bring him out!”; and “Traitor Pence!”
114. The Defendant repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors—including the White House Counsel, a Deputy White House Counsel, the Chief of Staff, a Deputy Chief of Staff, and a Senior Advisor. Instead, the Defendant issued two Tweets that did not ask rioters to leave the Capitol but instead falsely suggested that the crowd at the Capitol was being peaceful, including a. AU238 pm., “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement ‘They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
At 3:13 pm, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Pasty of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
115. At 3:00 pm., the Defendant had a phone call with the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives. The Defendant told the Minority Leader that the crowd at the ‘Capitol was more upset about the election than the Minority Leader was.
pp. 39-40
More evidence Trump wanted the rioters to do exactly what they did, was happy they did it and dragged his feet in stopping the violence which he was observing.
@no1marauder saidYou claimed crowdstrike did not admit they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC. That is a lie and you know it is a lie because I proved it. So why won't you admit it?
Indictments don't have to prove anything.
Your idea that the legal system can't determine someone's intent is incredibly ignorant and outright stupid. It may well be that Trump made statements showing he knew his claims were false. At any rate, the prosecutors have more information regarding what Trump actually believed than what is spelled out in the indictment ...[text shortened]... s mind to establish intent to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt; it gets done in US courts every day.
If Trump never admits he lied how will you prove he doesn't believe the things he said? He could just be in denial of facts like you are. Or are you willing to admit you lied?
The indictment is contradictory. Lying is not against the law, but he lied and knew he lied. In other words, his lies are not illegal but hate him for it anyway.
@no1marauder said"Only two States even placed such caveats on the certificates (5 didn't) and at any rate the conspirators ignored it, sent the fake certificates in and then pressured Pence toss out the duly elected and official electors and replace them with the fake ones even though no court had ruled to do so"
You "proved" no such thing. Only two States even placed such caveats on the certificates (5 didn't) and at any rate the conspirators ignored it, sent the fake certificates in and then pressured Pence toss out the duly elected and official electors and replace them with the fake ones even though no court had ruled to do so. Your point is actually strong evidence of crimina ...[text shortened]... .
You making the same mistake over and over and over again doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
What is your source of information?
1 edit
@metal-brain saidYou have never proven anything in this forum in the entire history of this forum.
You claimed crowdstrike did not admit they had no evidence Russia hacked the DNC. That is a lie and you know it is a lie because I proved it. So why won't you admit it?
If Trump never admits he lied how will you prove he doesn't believe the things he said? He could just be in denial of facts like you are. Or are you willing to admit you lied?
The indictment is cont ...[text shortened]... , but he lied and knew he lied. In other words, his lies are not illegal but hate him for it anyway.
@no1marauder said" When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry because the election had been stolen"
Here's what Trump did after the crowd he had incited broke into the Capitol:
" 110. Upon receiving news that individuals had breached the Capitol, the Defendant's advisors told him that there was a riot there and that rioters had breached the building. [b]When advisors urged the Defendant to issue a calming message aimed at the rioters, the Defendant refused, instead r ...[text shortened]... hey did, was happy they did it and dragged his feet in stopping the violence which he was observing.
Is that illegal?
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
It matters little what we say, even if he is convicted in court you will STILL defend him, this time going, THOSE COMMIE COURTS ARE CORRUPT, made obvious BECAUSE they convicted my god king.
And BTW, he already HAS been convicted of crimes, at least THREE so far, the rape case, the so-called Trump university, which was a grift from day one, and the so-called Trump 'charity', now the fines are up to THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS, 25 for the frauds and 5 million SO FAR on the defemation case.
But to a magite zombie that you are, that is water under the bridge and will be re-written in history if Trump becomes the next POTUS.